I like a nicely structured debate. Making the framework and definitions clear is important. However, I do not like for this to carry on. Make the structure clear and move on. You should not still be debating what the framework is in your last rebuttals.

I look for quality sources, not quantity

Debates that build off each other are the best. Don't debate at me, debate with your opponent.

I also look for speaking style. Since I am primarily a speech judge, I take speaking skills into account. Mumbling, speaking monotonously, over using hand movements, and stumbling will rank you lower.

Lastly, I just want the argument to make sense. Don't give me a convoluted, overly complex argument. Make it make sense.

I prefer if speakers wait for all judges to respond that they are ready before speaking. A balance between presentation and substance is a must. Say your sources clearly and explain with specifics.

Hi, my name is Aamer Husain. I graduated last year from Durham Academy and have participated in Public Forum, Extemp, and Informative Speaking.

For Extemp, I value highest a clear and logical argument that utilizes signposting and a variety of sources and analysis. However, it is also very important that you engage me as the audience with delivery, but I will not be impelled to rank you high if I don't buy your argument.

For debate:

no progressive debate - strike me if u plan on doing this.

I don't flow crossfire so anything you want me to flow should come up during speeches.

Here are a few things I like:

1. Warranting and Responsiveness: If you just read cards don't expect to win my ballot. Give me some sort of analysis and warranting behind your arguments. I like clash in round. Make sure that the responses you make are specifically responsive to case. One again, don't just read cards, give me how those cards specifically take out their argument. Also, if I believe your evidence is miscut or you fail to provide sufficient evidence in a card that is central to the argument in question, that argument will not be flowed.

Lastly, in the later speeches, it is not helpful for me if you just say "they concede the turn, or don't acknowledge a delink, etc." If the point is crucial, make sure to reiterate/reexplain the actual turn, delink, disadd, etc. in ur later speeches so I can better understand it in terms of the entire debate.

2. Signposting: Please signpost it helps me flow and gives structure to your speeches.

3. Comparative Analysis: I see that in a lot of rounds two people will have cards saying the opposite things. At that point you need to prove to me why your card is better (warranting, postdating, etc) otherwise you leave it to a 50/50 where I have to decide which card is better.

4. Extensions: Your final focus should just bring up the same topics and cards as summary. New arguments in final focus will not be flowed. If you drop an argument in summary, you concede that argument no matter how bad their argument is.

5. Weighing: Make sure to weigh impacts and links at least in final focus. It is the main way you are going to win my ballot.

6. Be Respectful: There is a difference between being assertive and rude. If you are being disrespectful in any way I will drop you and give you very low speaks. Make sure to have respect for your opponents.

7. Speed: I am good with speed, but not too fast or spreading (200ish words/min is a good benchmark)

-Adapted from Aryan Nair cuz I’m too lazy to write my own

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Speaker Points: Aim for an average score of 28.5, considering strategy, efficiency, and argument quality. Scores may vary based on these factors.

Humor Bonus: If you add humor that aligns positively, not at the expense of others, I'll award an extra speaker point.

Final Focus Weight: Utilize the Final Focus as the primary mechanism to explain why your team deserves to win. Summarize your side's key points and bring the debate to a strong conclusion.

Crossfire Etiquette: Emphasize kindness during crossfire interactions.

Argument Quality: Prioritize clearly warranted and well-substantiated arguments supported by evidence. Prefer fewer, well-developed arguments over numerous unsubstantiated ones.

Former PF Debater

Prefer more traditional, big picture PF debate.

Slow down, weigh, warrant, create a narrative.

I am an assistant coach, this is my second year coaching, third year judging. I am a teacher certified in English Language Arts and have actively taught high school for 5 years. My notes and comments tend to follow my flow/train of thought as I type as I go, making comments as I see things.

For my first two years of judging, I have almost exclusively judged speech events with debate/congress sprinkled in, however this year I have been judging mostly LD.

I have never gone into a round and found a student I wanted to do poorly. I want you to succeed as much as you want to succeed.

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message:Is your argument well-thought? Is your resolve interesting? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logical way that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading?

Delivery of Message:Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing? Can the judge hear what you are saying without straining?

Evidence of Engagement:Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal:Are you able to use their Value to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank:While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches:Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning:Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum:Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

RP:Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules:Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer:The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Ashton Swinney, Senior Intelligence Analyst - Fort Bragg, NC

Background:

I am an Intelligence Analyst that works for the US Military. I have spent over 10 years in the role. My job has made me very familiar with public speaking, albeit within a military framework.

With that in mind, while I am adept at picking up jargon pretty fast, I am not familiar with the colloquialisms/slang of this organization quite yet. So I would ask that you keep that in mind.

I expect all arguments to remain professional and respectful. You may speak at what pace works best for you, as long as you are speaking clearly and concisely. I am used to listening to my audiobooks/podcasts/videos at 2-2.5x speed, so I don't expect speed to be an issue unless what you are saying is said poorly enunciated. Please do not test how much you can say in one breathe though.

I don't care if you sit, stand, or talk with your hands.

If the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision at the end of the round after I have submitted my ballot.